2025:HHC:33223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 25 of 2025 Reserved on: 12.9.2025 Date of Decision: 24.9.2025. State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Kushal Chand and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.6.2025 and order of sentence dated 19.6.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33223 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for the commission of the aforesaid offence. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. It has been asserted that the police had recovered 27.668 grams of heroin from the accused, which is an intermediate quantity. The punishment can extend up to 10 years, and the fine can extend to ₹1.00 lac. Many cases are registered under the NDPS Act, and a deterrent sentence should have been awarded in the present case. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court be enhanced. 3. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in sentencing the accused for a period of one year. Many cases are being registered under the NDPS Act. Heroin is ruining the future of many young people. A deterrent sentence should have been awarded in the present case. Learned Trial Court erred in 3 2025:HHC:33223 not imposing the deterrent sentence. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the sentence be enhanced. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 109: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 755 that the Courts have to apply the principle of proportionality while imposing a sentence. It was observed at page 113: 10. This Court has, time and again, stated that the principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 368: (2009) 8 SCR 719] it was held that the sentence should “deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law,” and the endeavour should be to impose an “appropriate sentence.” The Court also held that imposing “meagre sentences” merely on account of lapse of time would be counterproductive. Likewise, in Jameel v. State of U.P. [Jameel v. State of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 582 : (2009) 15 SCR 712] while advocating that sentencing should be fact dependent exercises, the Court also emphasised that : (Jameel case [Jameel v. State of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 582 : (2009) 15 SCR 712], SCC p. 535, para 15) “15. … the law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on a factual matrix. By deft modulation, the sentencing process be stern where it should be, and 4 2025:HHC:33223 tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 594: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 972: (2012) 8 SCR 189] the Court stressed that: (SCC p. 744, para 33) “33. … It is the duty of the court to see that an appropriate sentence is imposed, regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order” (emphasis supplied) and that sentencing includes “adequate punishment”. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn. [B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn., (1974) 3 SCC 85: 1973 SCC (Cri) 796 : (1974) 1 SCR 222], the Court considered the issue of punishment and observed that punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as well as prevent the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentences. 12. In Sham Sunder v. Puran [Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731: 1991 SCC (Cri) 38: 1990 Supp (1) SCR 662], the appellant- accused was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellate court reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone, i.e. six months. However, it enhanced the fine. This Court ruled that the sentence awarded was inadequate. Proceeding further, it opined that: (SCC p. 737, para 8) 5 2025:HHC:33223 8. … The court, in fixing the punishment for any particular crime, should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The sentence imposed by the High Court appears to be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to involve a failure of justice. We are of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the sentence has to be enhanced.”(emphasis supplied) This Court enhanced the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. This Court has emphasised in that sentencing depends on the facts, and the adequacy is determined by factors such as “the nature of the crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity shown and the brutality reflected”. Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., (2017) 4 SCC 546: (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 436: (2017) 2 SCR 379. Other decisions, like: State of M.P. v. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2014) 9 SCR 467; Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 159 : (2013) 5 SCR 979] and  State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 751 : (2015) 3 SCR 590 too, have stressed on the significance and importance of imposing appropriate, “adequate” or “proportionate” punishments.” 6. In the present case, the accused was found in possession of 27.668 grams of heroin. If the principle of proportionality is applied, a person possessing 25 grams of heroin would be liable to imprisonment for a period of one year because a person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be punished with imprisonment for ten years. Therefore, the 6 2025:HHC:33223 sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be insufficient; rather, it is proportional to the nature of the crime. 7. It was submitted that the heroin hurts society, and a deterrent sentence should have been awarded in the present case. This submission is not acceptable. The principle of proportionality is a universally recognised principle of awarding the sentence and cannot be deviated from in the present case. As far as deterrence is concerned, the certainty of the punishment and not its severity constitutes the deterrence; therefore, the State would be well advised to ensure certainty of punishment instead of clamouring for severity. Therefore, the sentence cannot be enhanced simply because the State feels that a deterrent sentence should have been awarded in the present case. 8. In view of the above, there is no reason to enhance the sentence in the present case. 9. Consequently, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 24th September, 2025 (Chander)